Poll
Question:
Which is the better sci fi series: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Option 1: Star Wars
votes: 33
Option 2: Star Trek
votes: 36
Option 3: I like to pretend I'm not a nerd (even though I post on languish)
votes: 4
We've discussed nearly every geeky topic under the sun, but I don't think we've ever done this one (plus I've been brushing up on my Star Trek geekdom with the new MMO coming out).
Now I know Dr. Who has it's fans, Battlestar Galactica was nifty, Buck Rodgers has golden age cool, and Babylon 5 has grumbler. But we all know that in the end there are two towering behemoths of science fiction-dom.
So which is your favourite: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Luke Skywalker, or Captain Kirk?
The Millenium Falcon, or the Enterprise?
Yeoman Rand in a 60s miniskirt, or Princess Leia in a gold bikini?
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!, or KHHHHAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!
Star Wars, mostly as it takes more from Dune.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:16:02 PM
Star Wars, mostly as it takes more from Dune.
Only you would see Dune in Star Wars.
I like to pretend you all will die in nerd death camps
Star Wars original trilogy beats anything Star Trek put out. The second trilogy was a huge let-down, but still not as bad as the worst of Trek. Star Wars ftw.
Star Wars, despite George Lucas' best efforts of late. Killing the Karen Traviss series and making Mandalore into a peace-loving, post-apocalyptic world is nigh on unforgivable though. I'm going through season 1 of TOS, and my opinions could alter.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:16:02 PM
Star Wars, mostly as it takes more from Dune.
Only you would see Dune in Star Wars.
:huh:
Are you fucking serious? Frank Herbert almost sued Lucas. What do you think Tatooine is, anyway? Tusken Raiders? They even have a Sand Worm carcass in the background.
Star Trek. Because unlike Star Wars it's not just for children.
Link. (http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html)
Star Wars is basically a cocktail of Dune, Campbell, early 20th Century Sci-Fi/Fantasy serials and The Hidden Fortress. This is common knowledge.
Trek movies are much worse than SW. Even the best of them are merely good, not best ever material.
Comparing the series' to SW is comparing apples and oranges.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 05, 2010, 06:21:38 PM
Star Wars, despite George Lucas' best efforts of late. Killing the Karen Traviss series and making Mandalore into a peace-loving, post-apocalyptic world is nigh on unforgivable though. I'm going through season 1 of TOS, and my opinions could alter.
I refuse to recognise all that expanded universe stuff.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:29:53 PM
Link. (http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html)
Star Wars is basically a cocktail of Dune, Campbell, early 20th Century Sci-Fi/Fantasy serials and The Hidden Fortress. This is common knowledge.
Totally agree on Joseph Campbell, early serieals, and The Hidden Fortress.
It's only Dune I disagree with.
The only parallels I really see are a desert planet. Woo.
Star Wars is clearly Basil's Byzantium with an Armenian tinge.
Star Wars but only if you ignore the last three movies. Of course if you pick ST you have to ingnore so much more.
But both pale in comparison to Babylon 5.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Star Wars but only if you ignore the last three movies. Of course if you pick ST you have to ingnore so much more.
But both pale in comparison to Babylon 5.
:yuk:
We definitely have done this before, but it was so long ago it might have been @ KAPLand or even EUOT. But I don't remember the answer the last time so it's worthwhile to do it again. :cool:
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's Trek all the way. :cool:
To answer the question, let me first say that of the two, I have always considered Star Wars to be horribly overhyped. To me both are fairly similar in terms of the story originality and creativity (I mean Star Trek has become the space opera "cliche" simply because it was that popular and it established the genre - much the same way Lord of the Rings established fantasy); still Star Wars seems to have crazy fanboys who think Jedi is deep and spiritual; whereas Star Trek is mainly a butt of nerd jokes.
However, to me at least Star Trek presents a world socially engineered to my liking much more than the pseudo-feudal Star Wars setting (midichlorians :bleeding: ) so I'm going with Star Trek.
I had no idea Dr. Who had international recognition far less fans :mellow:
Weird.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 06:58:32 PM
However, to me at least Star Trek presents a world socially engineered to my liking much more than the pseudo-feudal Star Wars setting (midichlorians :bleeding: ) so I'm going with Star Trek.
Idiot boy, Everyone is saying compare the first three Star Wars movies with Star Trek. Everyone agrees the last three are terrible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 06:59:36 PM
I had no idea Dr. Who had international recognition far less fans :mellow:
Weird.
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 06:59:36 PM
I had no idea Dr. Who had international recognition far less fans :mellow:
Weird.
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
:frusty:
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 06:59:36 PM
I had no idea Dr. Who had international recognition far less fans :mellow:
Weird.
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
Wrong.
It was long broadcast on PBS which is where I discovered it. It now gets occasional playing on various cable networks. And CBC, oddly enough, has been playing the most modern series of Dr. Who.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 06:43:21 PM
It's only Dune I disagree with.
The only parallels I really see are a desert planet. Woo.
Child born with massive mysterious powers, lost other orders with the powers, rebellion against an Empire...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Star Wars but only if you ignore the last three movies. Of course if you pick ST you have to ingnore so much more.
But both pale in comparison to Babylon 5.
Battlestar Galactica (the new one - Starbuck is a chick!) is better than any of the mentioned.
I even own the Dr. Who role-playing game. :nerd:
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:02:37 PM
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
I can't believe that Torchwood's runaway international population with Polish gay lawyers and other flavours of gay (don't you people have TV shows with gay characters?) has been behind it, because Torchwood's not that big here.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 07:05:38 PM
I even own the Dr. Who role-playing game. :nerd:
:bowler:
I never got into Dr. Who to be honest. Not enough gay sex.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:05:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Star Wars but only if you ignore the last three movies. Of course if you pick ST you have to ingnore so much more.
But both pale in comparison to Babylon 5.
Battlestar Galactica (the new one - Starbuck is a chick!) is better than any of the mentioned.
:x
Off the subject, but i thought Martinass left the forum?
Or does he suck at leaving as much as hortlund?
Quote from: ulmont on January 05, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 06:43:21 PM
It's only Dune I disagree with.
The only parallels I really see are a desert planet. Woo.
Child born with massive mysterious powers, lost other orders with the powers, rebellion against an Empire...
All seem to be a reach.
Has Lucas ever said he was inspired by Dune? He has certainly acknowledged the other sources that were discussed.
Quote from: katmai on January 05, 2010, 07:07:15 PM
Off the subject, but i thought Martinass left the forum?
Lasted about 16 hours :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 05, 2010, 07:07:15 PM
Off the subject, but i thought Martinass left the forum?
Lasted about 16 hours :)
So about as long as his real life relationships, got it!
Impossible to choose if you include everything from both series. They both have some good as well as simply awful movies/series.
Quote from: ulmont on January 05, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
Child born with massive mysterious powers, lost other orders with the powers, rebellion against an Empire...
Dune invented those themes? :o
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 05, 2010, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 05, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
Child born with massive mysterious powers, lost other orders with the powers, rebellion against an Empire...
Dune invented those themes? :o
Exactly. If you follow Spellus's link, it also credits LotR, 2001, Forbidden Planet, the Wizard of Oz, and Ben-Hur as inspiration.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:02:37 PM
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
Nope. When I was a kid (like in elementary school), circa 1985 a friend and I used to watch Dr. Who all the time. He was such a big fan that his mom made him a Dr. Who costume which he wore not only for Halloween, but other times at random, just for the hell of it. Also he had a pet cat he named "Tardis". :nerd:
Also when I was in college I had a professor named "Dallek" and another friend and I used to make Dr. Who jokes all the time about that guy.
Quote from: katmai on January 05, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:05:20 PM
Battlestar Galactica (the new one - Starbuck is a chick!) is better than any of the mentioned.
:x
:yes: :bleeding:
As the question is about which is the better sci fi series I can't believe people who vote Star Wars. Star Wars only qualifies as sci fi in the widest sense; it is fantasy.
Star Trek, hands down.
I don't hate Star Wars but I don't like the original 3 movies as they didn't aged well at all.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
Frank Herbert almost sued Lucas.
:lol:
That only proves that Herbert is a little bit crazy/stupid.
That'd be like Anne Rice suing that Twilight bitch.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:05:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Star Wars but only if you ignore the last three movies. Of course if you pick ST you have to ingnore so much more.
But both pale in comparison to Babylon 5.
Battlestar Galactica (the new one - Starbuck is a chick!) is better than any of the mentioned.
Fuck you you filthy fucking Russian. You should get your dumb fucking hypochondriac ass checked out, because I think AIDS is rotting your brain.
My wife got me the old Battlestar Galactica for Christmas. It is so much better than the new abomination.
I'm not a fan of most science fiction, but I'm especially not a fan of the star wars/Dune genre. Yes they do share that much in that they're not so much science fiction as some sort of mutated crossbreed between sci-fi and fantasy, like someone got the past and the future confused.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 06:59:36 PM
I had no idea Dr. Who had international recognition far less fans :mellow:
Weird.
I think it is a recent phenomenon, and I think (could be wrong) that this is a result of the international popularity of Torchwood which was broadcasted internationally.
... No?
Dr. Who was on regularily when I was a kid. Every weekend Tom Baker would be on my TV.
Trying to be charitable to Marty it may be that Dr. Who wasn't played in communist Poland, so Torchwood is his first exposure to Dr. Who.
But even then - surely the new Dr. Who series is more popular than Torchwood?
It's just bizarre...
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
Frank Herbert almost sued Lucas.
:lol:
That only proves that Herbert is a little bit crazy/stupid.
That'd be like Anne Rice suing that Twilight bitch.
Actually, I don't think he particularly wanted to, just that some friends/family members pushed it, IIRC.
Quote
Exactly. If you follow Spellus's link, it also credits LotR, 2001, Forbidden Planet, the Wizard of Oz, and Ben-Hur as inspiration.
:huh:
It clearly gives most prominence to Dune. I didn't say that Star Wars WAS Dune, just that it was clearly influenced quite a bit by it, and that I liked that. Did you check out the list of similarities that they had? It has friggin Spice Mines on a Desert Planet. Even some of Star Wars' Buddhist/spiritual stuff has some clear roots in the Bene Gesserit and the more Zen parts of the Zensunni.
Can we purge spellus from the whole forums?
There were mines on Tatooine?
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 08:17:28 PM
There were mines on Tatooine?
Sandcrawlers "from a mining period long time ago". Sandcrawlers were used on Arrakis to mine, though I'd forgotten that Spice was from kessel, hence requiring a "run". Compare Anakin's uncle "dew collecting" with what the Fremen did. Or Jedi Bendu with Prana Bindu.
I'm a little surprised you guys are giving me shit for this. Compare the "Jedi Mind Trick" to the Bene Gesserit voice , Jedi strength and speed to the Bene Gesserit, their reliance on Koans, even some very small things like automated sword targeting dummies and the appearance of Jabba the Hutt (compare Leto II) seem influenced by Dune.
I think some things are coincidental; both draw up awkwardly maintained, overly stressed Empires, though I think Star Wars draws upon the Roman Republic (via Asimov, somewhat), while Dune borrows from the campaign of T.E. Lawrence and the fall of the Sassanids (partially via the Shahnameh, referenced within the text) and Byzantines, as well as OPEC.
You're reaching.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 08:43:11 PM
You're reaching.
Jedi Bindu and Prana Bendu? Spice as an addictive drug that has to be mined? Zen and Koans in space? Really? :huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 08:50:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 08:43:11 PM
You're reaching.
Jedi Bindu and Prana Bendu? Spice as an addictive drug that has to be mined? Zen and Koans in space? Really? :huh:
Really.
I said "has more Dune". And I've proven some manner of influence from Dune. I didn't say "OMG IT TOOK EVERYTHING FROM DUNE", just some key concepts and gave back more than a few references. It is even in Frank Herbert's Wikipedia page. The early drafts of Star War's script have feuding feudal families and Princess Leia guarding a shipment of aura spice.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 09:03:54 PM
I said "has more Dune". And I've proven some manner of influence from Dune. I didn't say "OMG IT TOOK EVERYTHING FROM DUNE", just some key concepts and gave back more than a few references. It is even in Frank Herbert's Wikipedia page. The early drafts of Star War's script have feuding feudal families and Princess Leia guarding a shipment of aura spice.
You haven't described any key concepts that are taken from Dune. I mean, the whole spice thing is utterly irrelevant.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 07:08:52 PM
Has Lucas ever said he was inspired by Dune? He has certainly acknowledged the other sources that were discussed.
Googling this I get a number of sites saying that the link's something Lucas has acknowledged in numerous interviews. It would be, frankly, more unusual if he weren't influenced by Dune. He's making a science fiction film and Dune was by that point, I believe, widely considered a classic of the genre.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 09:07:00 PM
You haven't described any key concepts that are taken from Dune. I mean, the whole spice thing is utterly irrelevant.
What would you class as a key concept?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:07:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 09:07:00 PM
You haven't described any key concepts that are taken from Dune. I mean, the whole spice thing is utterly irrelevant.
What would you class as a key concept?
A concept that is actually important to the story and world of Star Wars.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 09:07:00 PM
You haven't described any key concepts that are taken from Dune. I mean, the whole spice thing is utterly irrelevant.
:rolleyes:
1) Koans. A lot of the Zen stuff from Dune ended up in Star Wars.
2) A lot of the magic, witchery. The Jedi are a mysterious centralized, pan-galactic organization that attempts to warp and interact with peoples on thousands of different planets, and have powers including ultra-rapid response in melee combat, various breath and body control powers, as well as the ability to influence weaker minds with a special voice. The two concepts (Para Bendu and Jedi Bindu) even have variants of the same name. Bene Gesserit + Samurai = Jedai.
3) I think the presence of guidance by the disembodied voices of dead people (Harkonen-Alia, Obi-Luke) and occasional glimpses of the future have quite a bit in common with Dune, though granted they are just as likely to come from some other source.
All of this is a lot more obvious in the original; the Fairy Tale element, present in all of Star Wars and not really there in Dune, kind of becomes triumphant by Return of the Jedi (in the Dune Universe, the Ewoks would have been glassed with stoneburners). But I still think the influence of Dune, particularly in A New Hope, is
almost as apparent as the influence of The Hidden Fortress, though granted they influenced different things.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 09:08:43 PM
A concept that is actually important to the story and world of Star Wars.
Okay, but I'm still not sure what you mean by concept. Sorry :mellow:
I've never heard anyone argue so much trying to prove that something so-so was influenced by something really bad.
Star trek probably.....Started with TNG, Voyager really hooked me( :blush:), and DS9 was pretty entertaining with the dominion wars arc.
I love both but Star Trek edges out, having disappointed me less often over the years.
I dunno. I've been having a huge relapse into Trekkiedom, lately.
I haven't felt comfortable calling myself a Star Wars nerd since Episode II came out. Episode I was just underwhelming... II all but killed the franchise for me. And I decided I hate most of the prequel design themes (games are still OK, though; have games running now of KOTOR and X-Wing Alliance).
I'm definitely more of a Trekkie; a friend and I were busy geeking out to TNG yesterday, and I realized I'm way too encyclopedic on Next Gen (soapbox: look at the blueprints, people; the Galaxy is the carrier, not the Akira).
Star Wars. Though my appreciation has gone way downhill after the introduction of the Expanded Universe (Thrawn trilogy was ok, but everything else ... yuk - except some of the short story collections that focus on background characters, like Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina) and the first two prequel movies.
I still enjoy reading the comics now and then, though, and Star Wars games, though most of the time I pretend the prequels and EU don't exist.
Me and a few friends debated recently about starting a Star Wars RPG group (the old West End Games D6 books are, uhm, available online), but we settled for the FireflySerenity RPG instead. Still, the old source books are marvellous. The new D20 RPG doesn't have anything on it.
I always liked Star Trek, but growing up, in a time when not everyone had a VCR yet, the Star Wars movies were more "exclusive" and elusive, with only the novelizations (plus the Alan Dean Foster book "Splinter of the Mind's Eye") and the Marvel comics series (which I still love) available while Star Trek kept being re-run.
Of course a lot of the fascination came from Star Wars being a kind of unique feat of film making and pushing the enevelope for special effects in an age when CGI hadn't taken over moviemaking to the point that anything was possible. As a kid that was overwhelmingly cool, from space ships to lightsabers to droids. Of course we had all the toys. Additionally, the plot was easy to follow.
Trek, on the other hand, was much more story driven, and my appreciation for it grew when I got older. Still, old Star Wars is still my favorite, even if a lot of it is childhood nostalgia.
I recently watched the movie Fanboys and a lot of it seemed eerily familiar.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:07:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 07:08:52 PM
Has Lucas ever said he was inspired by Dune? He has certainly acknowledged the other sources that were discussed.
Googling this I get a number of sites saying that the link's something Lucas has acknowledged in numerous interviews. It would be, frankly, more unusual if he weren't influenced by Dune. He's making a science fiction film and Dune was by that point, I believe, widely considered a classic of the genre.
Lucas has always admitted that he drew inspirations from many areas - the old saturday matinee classic western and sci-fi shows, the Akira Kurosawa movies (he stole his screen wipe technique for scene transitions, and Episode IV is loosely based on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress)), etc.
Kurosawa clearly stands out as an influence for the first movie. In interviews Lucas said that he liked his movies, because even though they took place in a strange culture that he knew nothing about you could follow the plot line easily and get immersed in the story's world. It was something he wanted to achieve for the first Star Wars movie, which is why throughout the movie there's little explanations about aliens, spaceships, moisture vaporators etc. All those things are taken for granted within the context of the movie and not explicitly spelled out and exlpained for the viewer.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 05, 2010, 10:40:48 PM
I love both but Star Trek edges out, having disappointed me less often over the years.
Exactly. My Star Wars fandom was on the brink to begin with when overgrown teddy bears defeated Imperial Legions, but that abomination of the prequels totally demolished it for me.
Star Trek has its issues as a franchise, but the strength of TOS, Khan, and the superior writing of the STTNG from season 4 onwards has kept it alive. Fuck DS9 and Voyager, and they really screwed up Enterprise, which had so much promise, but ST edges out SW for me.
What do you have against DS9?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 01:37:22 AM
What do you have against DS9?
Indeed. DS9 (about season 3 onward) was brilliant.
TOS, TNG, and DS9 were all good despite bad some episodes or slow starts. Voyager wasn't that good, and Enterprise sucked balls.
Star Wars utterly beats the crap out of Star Trek when it comes to computer games though.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 06, 2010, 02:23:39 AM
Star Wars utterly beats the crap out of Star Trek when it comes to computer games though.
:yeahright:
I booted up Birth of the Federation the other day. It still beats Rebellion all to hell.
I wish I could find my BoF cd.
Trek, but the only series that I really like is TNG.
Also - damnit Psellus, you are making me read more than the first book in the Dune series! :mad:
I was thinking X-Wing, Tie Fighter, Jedi Knight, and KOTOR. Didn't play Birth of the Federation, but Rebellion wasn't good
Both :D
*insert nerd quote*
This is old, but fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4
Star Wars vs Star Trek
In terms of nerd-dom and movies, Star Wars.
Not only it blows Star Trek movies out of the water, it was THE thing in my childhood.
And lastly, Star Wars has fans who are not complete and total nerds. The hardcore Trekkies however are the biggest nerds in the universe. Learning Klingon and admiring the communist dictatorship which is the Federation? Fuck that.
:rolleyes:
look at the goat herder aspiring to be a nerf herder.
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:04:53 AM
:rolleyes:
look at the goat herder aspiring to be a nerf herder.
I was actually shocked to learn that you and BB are such ST fans. I mean, I like you guys, and over here, a Trekkie is the lowest lifeform.
Is Enterprise really that awful? I saw maybe 2 or 3 episodes and it looked decent from what I remember. I think that was the first season or two though.The concept seemed kind of cool, and Scott Bakula is still the man for Quantum Leap and cheers-ing Utica Club in the opening credits of the new show he's in.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:09:49 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:04:53 AM
:rolleyes:
look at the goat herder aspiring to be a nerf herder.
I was actually shocked to learn that you and BB are such ST fans. I mean, I like you guys, and over here, a Trekkie is the lowest lifeform.
I was probably neck and neck as to which I loved till 1999.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:02:22 AM
In terms of nerd-dom and movies, Star Wars.
Not only it blows Star Trek movies out of the water, it was THE thing in my childhood.
And lastly, Star Wars has fans who are not complete and total nerds. The hardcore Trekkies however are the biggest nerds in the universe. Learning Klingon and admiring the communist dictatorship which is the Federation? Fuck that.
Considering Star Wars fans started a fucking religion, this is incorrect.
Quote from: Viking on January 06, 2010, 02:55:31 AM
This is old, but fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4
Star Wars vs Star Trek
I like this one :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFCBwob65Nw
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 08:50:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2010, 08:43:11 PM
You're reaching.
Jedi Bindu and Prana Bendu? Spice as an addictive drug that has to be mined? Zen and Koans in space? Really? :huh:
They both take from world religions. Your argument is akin to saying Song of Ice and Fire takes from Lord of the Rings, because both got swords and castles. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 08:06:26 PM
Trying to be charitable to Marty it may be that Dr. Who wasn't played in communist Poland, so Torchwood is his first exposure to Dr. Who.
But even then - surely the new Dr. Who series is more popular than Torchwood?
It's just bizarre...
I haven't heard of Dr. Who until I saw Torchwood. :P
And most geek websites I frequent (admittedly, gay geek websites) are all creamy about Torchwood and couldn't care less about Dr. Who. :P
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 06, 2010, 03:11:51 AM
Is Enterprise really that awful? I saw maybe 2 or 3 episodes and it looked decent from what I remember. I think that was the first season or two though.The concept seemed kind of cool, and Scott Bakula is still the man for Quantum Leap and cheers-ing Utica Club in the opening credits of the new show he's in.
Enterprise suffers from the basic problem of canon. It can't go outside it. It can't have something significant enough happen that might be "remembered" in one of the later series. So it had to create a secret hidden and banned part of the galaxy with a secret hidden and later extinct (iirc) alien species. Not good enough.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 06, 2010, 03:11:51 AM
Is Enterprise really that awful? I saw maybe 2 or 3 episodes and it looked decent from what I remember. I think that was the first season or two though.The concept seemed kind of cool, and Scott Bakula is still the man for Quantum Leap and cheers-ing Utica Club in the opening credits of the new show he's in.
I knew it was going to suck when the first episode had several minutes of a hott black vulcan chick ultra-sound showering. Which was very nice, but also it hinted on a pretty fucking huge lack of plot ideas.
The worst Trek series is Voyager, because it totally sissified the Borg.
black vulcan showering? I don't know what bootleg version they had over there, but I don't recall such a thing.
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:36:36 AM
black vulcan showering? I don't know what bootleg version they had over there, but I don't recall such a thing.
Maybe it was Tuvok?
Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2010, 03:37:45 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:36:36 AM
black vulcan showering? I don't know what bootleg version they had over there, but I don't recall such a thing.
Maybe it was Tuvok?
:lol:
Maybe not first episode but it did have that black-ish pointy-eared chick sonic showering. Fact.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 06, 2010, 03:16:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 06, 2010, 02:55:31 AM
This is old, but fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4
Star Wars vs Star Trek
I like this one :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFCBwob65Nw
:lol:
I like both ST and SW. I haven't seen either in years (except for the new pretty neat ST movie). I think SW is a bit better as it is more epic and I like that.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:39:44 AM
Maybe not first episode but it did have that black-ish pointy-eared chick sonic showering. Fact.
:huh:
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:39:29 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2010, 03:37:45 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:36:36 AM
black vulcan showering? I don't know what bootleg version they had over there, but I don't recall such a thing.
Maybe it was Tuvok?
:lol:
:lol: a quick googling reveals it was actually third season, so I guess I started watching the series a bit too late :D
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:44:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:39:44 AM
Maybe not first episode but it did have that black-ish pointy-eared chick sonic showering. Fact.
:huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_kID7_G-XVmQ%2FShCbTux2cjI%2FAAAAAAAAABs%2FQetei229fiI%2Fs320%2Ft%2527pol.jpg&hash=f293ab622e2049a808cb65cfc488ca1bc524c383)
She's about as black as you're European, Tamas.
Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2010, 03:54:37 AM
She's about as black as you're European, Tamas.
no, she isn't super-black :P
And it was several years ago so I did not remember well :P
Quote from: Viking on January 06, 2010, 03:31:18 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 06, 2010, 03:11:51 AM
Is Enterprise really that awful? I saw maybe 2 or 3 episodes and it looked decent from what I remember. I think that was the first season or two though.The concept seemed kind of cool, and Scott Bakula is still the man for Quantum Leap and cheers-ing Utica Club in the opening credits of the new show he's in.
Enterprise suffers from the basic problem of canon. It can't go outside it. It can't have something significant enough happen that might be "remembered" in one of the later series. So it had to create a secret hidden and banned part of the galaxy with a secret hidden and later extinct (iirc) alien species. Not good enough.
They didn't need to do anything hidden, tons of awesome shit happened during that time that we only know vague hints about. You know, like the
FORMATION OF THE FEDERATION AND THE ROMULAN WAR!!!!!111 WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T WE SEE THAT???? :mad:
Only boys like Star Wars. fact.
Quote from: Brazen on January 06, 2010, 05:57:22 AM
Only boys like Star Wars. fact.
Yeah, right.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.encyclopediadramatica.com%2Fimages%2F7%2F75%2FCosplay_leias.jpg&hash=226d2e30328f2dcdbb63a3658d6702813a3856da)
Looking good, kat.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:09:49 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 03:04:53 AM
:rolleyes:
look at the goat herder aspiring to be a nerf herder.
I was actually shocked to learn that you and BB are such ST fans. I mean, I like you guys, and over here, a Trekkie is the lowest lifeform.
Pretty funny coming from somebody in a country where formal clothing is considered an Adidas track suit.
Star Wars is fun (I deny the existence of the new three films) but Star Trek wins out.
The two last Star Wars (i.e. episodes 2 + 3) films aren't worse than Star Trek 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 or 10.
Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2010, 07:42:14 AM
The two last Star Wars (i.e. episodes 2 + 3) films aren't worse than Star Trek 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 or 10.
Star Trek 1 and 3 were good. Stop being so gay.
I got laid.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
:huh:
Are you fucking serious? Frank Herbert almost sued Lucas. What do you think Tatooine is, anyway? Tusken Raiders? They even have a Sand Worm carcass in the background.
Tatooine is the wild west in space: Mos Eisely Space Port is a fronteir town; Han Solo is the outlaw who turns into a hero, like the Ringo Kid; Tusken Raiders are the warlike Indian tribes, like the Comanche; and Jawa are the more peaceful trading tribes. Lucas stole deep and wide when he made Star Wars, one of his influences was John Ford's "The Searchers." The misfortunes that befall Luke early in the film (death of the guardians while he is away), his reaction when he pieces it together (recklessly racing home) and his ultimate decision to follow the older teacher mirror those of Martin Pawley.
W was influenced by Dune when he invaded Iraq.
Dune didn't even come out until 1984 anyways, so how could Star Wars be influenced by it?
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:08:11 AM
Dune didn't even come out until 1984 anyways, so how could Star Wars be influenced by it?
Sting's acting transcends space and time.
Max von Sydow rocks. :wub:
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:08:11 AM
Dune didn't even come out until 1984 anyways, so how could Star Wars be influenced by it?
Ironically, I remember when I first watched the Dune movie, I thought "This is a ripoff of Star Wars, only shittier."
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2010, 09:12:58 AM
Max von Sydow rocks. :wub:
I like to play with things a while, BEFORE ANNIHILATION.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 03:02:22 AM
And lastly, Star Wars has fans who are not complete and total nerds. The hardcore Trekkies however are the biggest nerds in the universe. Learning Klingon and admiring the communist dictatorship which is the Federation? Fuck that.
This may be true in the Third World, but in the First World we have SW LARPers, who are far, far nerdier than the ST fans who think learning Klingon is a hoot.
I don't know any adults who would admit that they thought the kiddie films were better than the ST stuff. Even if the teddy bears didn't drive them away, Jar-Jar would have.
I know next to nothing about any SW stuff other than the first four movies. The books, when they first started coming out, looked like craptastic pulp, and the fourth movie was so bad I have never bothered with the fifth or sixth one.
Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2010, 03:34:33 AM
The worst Trek series is Voyager, because it totally sissified the Borg.
It's the worst, but not even for that. The series tried to pick up some slack in seasons 6 and 7 (4 and 5 were complete and utter shite, admittedly), but then they had to go out with that ending lifted straight from Fanfic.net. I gotta admit, though, ENT didn't mesh with my schedule, and I complained about that right up until I found out about an episode involving time travel and the Defiant. ENT's problem was that they tried to capitalize on the resurgence of Dr. Who, and failed miserably.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 06, 2010, 09:33:37 AM
It's the worst, but not even for that. The series tried to pick up some slack in seasons 6 and 7 (4 and 5 were complete and utter shite, admittedly), but then they had to go out with that ending lifted straight from Fanfic.net. I gotta admit, though, ENT didn't mesh with my schedule, and I complained about that right up until I found out about an episode involving time travel and the Defiant. ENT's problem was that they tried to capitalize on the resurgence of Dr. Who, and failed miserably.
The last episode of Enterprise aired May 2005. The first episode of the new Dr. Who aired on BBC in March 2005. I don't think there was that much influence of Dr. Who on Enterprise, at least not from the latest outing.
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:08:11 AM
Dune didn't even come out until 1984 anyways, so how could Star Wars be influenced by it?
Ironically, I remember when I first watched the Dune movie, I thought "This is a ripoff of Star Wars, only shittier."
I don't know how you sat through that abortion of a movie.
YUO = STRONG.
I think they kept showing it over and over again on HBO one summer in the late 80s. It probably took me like 7 or 8 partial viewings to see the entire thing.
HBO would get like fixated on certain movies for a period of several months and then show them over and over and over and OVER again. Movies that I recall falling into this category include:
Yes, Giorgio!
Romancing the Stone
Weekend at Bernie's
Big Trouble in Little China
Little Monsters
Outrageous Fortune
Uncle Buck
HBO was a favorite for me too when I was playing hooky from school. MY STOMACH HURTS.
Yor, the Hunter from the Future. Be there or be square.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:11:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 09:08:11 AM
Dune didn't even come out until 1984 anyways, so how could Star Wars be influenced by it?
Ironically, I remember when I first watched the Dune movie, I thought "This is a ripoff of Star Wars, only shittier."
I don't know how you sat through that abortion of a movie.
YUO = STRONG.
"I will kill him! I will!"
I did love Baron Harkonnen's grav thingy. :blush:
I'd have thought you loved the floating space turds that were the Guild Navigators. ;)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 06, 2010, 10:43:23 AM
I'd have thought you loved the floating space turds that were the Guild Navigators. ;)
I only care about my own turds. :blush:
I know jack about Star Trek I just never got it but my wife loves it. I sorta enjoyed the most recent movie which would alone probably get me crucified by hard core Trekkies or something.
Star Wars was great but was ruined by the prequels...I did enjoy the Old Republic games so I guess I will go with that.
Although I did enjoy alot of the Star Wars books for the pulp they are, the new trilogy was painful. So Star Trek, love TNG, DS9 and movies 2,4,6,8, and 11. The books Shatner had ghost written for him were pretty amusing too.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2010, 10:46:18 AM
hard core Trekkies
Aren't the hard core ones called Trekkers?
Trekkie = obsessed with TOS
Trekker = obsessed with TNG
I thought Trekker was what Trekkies call themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2010, 10:46:18 AM
I know jack about Star Trek I just never got it but my wife loves it. I sorta enjoyed the most recent movie which would alone probably get me crucified by hard core Trekkies or something.
Star Wars was great but was ruined by the prequels...I did enjoy the Old Republic games so I guess I will go with that.
Black Holes don't work that way and even if they did the Romulans wouldn't need any help from Spock to fix their Sun. Because unlike the Federation which relies on antimatter reactors, Romulan Warbirds are powered by artificial quantum singularities, so they're already experts on black holes.
That aside I really enjoyed that movie anyways.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2010, 10:53:44 AM
Aren't the hard core ones called Trekkers?
I know about as much about Star Trek as I do about Afghanistan buggy racing so I have no idea.
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 10:55:15 AM
Trekkie = obsessed with TOS
Trekker = obsessed with TNG
Both of them = virgins
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 10:59:50 AM
Black Holes don't work that way and even if they did the Romulans wouldn't need any help from Spock to fix their Sun. Because unlike the Federation which relies on antimatter reactors, Romulan Warbirds are powered by artificial quantum singularities, so they're already experts on black holes.
NERD!
Quote from: Caliga on January 06, 2010, 11:15:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 10:59:50 AM
Black Holes don't work that way and even if they did the Romulans wouldn't need any help from Spock to fix their Sun. Because unlike the Federation which relies on antimatter reactors, Romulan Warbirds are powered by artificial quantum singularities, so they're already experts on black holes.
NERD!
That was the response I was looking for. ^_^
You have posted too much anime crap to redeem yourself so easily.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 06, 2010, 03:11:51 AM
Is Enterprise really that awful? I saw maybe 2 or 3 episodes and it looked decent from what I remember. I think that was the first season or two though.The concept seemed kind of cool, and Scott Bakula is still the man for Quantum Leap and cheers-ing Utica Club in the opening credits of the new show he's in.
I thought it was good. But I think I may have been the only person. There were some crap episodes here and there, but all the series had those.
I remember thinking the concept of Enterprise was dumb, and by the time it came on I didn't watch much live TV anymore. The couple of episodes I've seen in syndication seemed allright though.
Once you get over the stupid song & other inane concepts Enterprise is Ok.
The problem with Star Trek is that it's been beaten to death and back. They can't seem to let it lie. And no the reboot movie didn't breathe any new life in it IMO.
Star Wars on the other hand has enormous potential. When Lucas finally croaks and the rights to these movies are sold by his heirs, somebody with talent can have a go at a remake.
G.
Star Trek
Although I overall prefer Stargate :P
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 12:40:59 PM
The problem with Star Trek is that it's been beaten to death and back. They can't seem to let it lie. And no the reboot movie didn't breathe any new life in it IMO.
I think ST did get over-exposed about a decade ago, the concept itself is hardly dead. How can it be - it's ultimately a story of space exploration. The possibilities are limitless. There are nearly endless possible prosthetic foreheads they can still use. :P
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
It would work if they made Han a woman.
A woman torn between her brother and another woman. I like it.
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 12:40:59 PM
The problem with Star Trek is that it's been beaten to death and back. They can't seem to let it lie. And no the reboot movie didn't breathe any new life in it IMO.
Star Wars on the other hand has enormous potential. When Lucas finally croaks and the rights to these movies are sold by his heirs, somebody with talent can have a go at a remake.
If it has such enormous potential why remake an already existing brilliant movie? Make something new that is actually good in the Star Wars universe.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
It would work if they made Han a woman.
That sound was my childhood being raped.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
Don't be absurd - they just need to call Ron Moore for the remake - something dark and gritty. :cool:
G.
Star Wars is already fairly dark and gritty.
Or is as gritty as you're going to get in a movie partially aimed at kids.
Ewoks aside of course.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 02:31:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
It would work if they made Han a woman.
That sound was my childhood being raped.
I thought he was supposed to be a 12 foot tall green slug with gills.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:43:13 PM
Or is as gritty as you're going to get in a movie partially aimed at kids.
How was it aimed at adults?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2010, 10:27:59 AM
HBO was a favorite for me too when I was playing hooky from school. MY STOMACH HURTS.
Yor, the Hunter from the Future. Be there or be square.
Italo-Turkish co-productions FTW!
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2010, 04:05:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:43:13 PM
Or is as gritty as you're going to get in a movie partially aimed at kids.
How was it aimed at adults?
I don't think I can answer that.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 04:55:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 04:55:32 PM
How was it aimed at adults?
I don't think I can answer that.
Princess Leia dressed in her slave outfit appeals to me much more today than it did when I was 10.
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 02:39:34 PM
Don't be absurd - they just need to call Ron Moore for the remake - something dark and gritty. :cool:
I guarantee that any director who would dare to do such a thing would be assassinated within a month of his accepting the job.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 06:21:13 PM
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 02:39:34 PM
Don't be absurd - they just need to call Ron Moore for the remake - something dark and gritty. :cool:
I guarantee that any director who would dare to do such a thing would be assassinated within a month of his accepting the job.
Agreed. It seems to me that SW is a very personal universe of its creator, and has the strengths and weaknesses of that fact - much like the B5 or Honor Harrington universes, where outside players seem to have flopped spectacularly.
Moore seems like one of those people who could actually succeed, if he had the balls to do something creative and not derivative. Trying to remake things that don't need to be remade seems a mugs game, as
Battlestar Galactica proved. That was actually an okay series (except for maybe the last season or so) that would have been maybe a great series had Moore not started with someone else's ideas and been limited unnecessarily thereby.
You could probably say the same thing about Lynch and
Dune.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 06:39:13 PM
You could probably say the same thing about Lynch and Dune.
I don't know. I think Lynch's Dune is a wonderful failure precisely because of his creative vision which is distinct from the book (I prefer the film to the book). The lack of creativity is part of what annoys me about these comic book adaptations. Film-making and re-making should never be done by fanboys because you don't get a good film that can stand on its own as a film. Based on his work so far I think Zack Snyder should be banned from being anywhere near a camera, for example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 06:47:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 06:39:13 PM
You could probably say the same thing about Lynch and Dune.
I don't know. I think Lynch's Dune is a wonderful failure precisely because of his creative vision which is distinct from the book (I prefer the film to the book). The lack of creativity is part of what annoys me about these comic book adaptations. Film-making and re-making should never be done by fanboys because you don't get a good film that can stand on its own as a film. Based on his work so far I think Zack Snyder should be banned from being anywhere near a camera, for example.
I don't know about preferring the movie, but I do love Lynch's Dune in it's own right. It has a wonderful look to it. I remember watching the Sci Fi miniseries and it was much more accurate to the book, but also much more flat.
If Lynch had only kept out those fucking scream guns.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 06:50:57 PM
I don't know about preferring the movie, but I do love Lynch's Dune in it's own right. It has a wonderful look to it. I remember watching the Sci Fi miniseries and it was much more accurate to the book, but also much more flat.
I think I prefer the film because I had such low expectations and thought it was a wonderfully interesting failure and had a really interesting vision to it - like I love some Terry Gilliam films that just didn't work, alas. By contrast I got told by everyone that the book was incredible and was underwhelmed - had I never heard anyone hype it I would have probably enjoyed it more.
Dune the book was pretty ok, not best ever material but ok.
I tried to read the sequel though and it was horrid. Just endless talking about rubbish.
The game now. That was awesome. Its a shame they sold out and made Dune 2 so bleh.
I'd agree on the Dune film having a nice aesthetic. The Harkonen were pretty cool there. Also I'd agree on the series being rather dull; in keepign with the book I suppose but not so fun in its own right
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
I think I prefer the film because I had such low expectations and thought it was a wonderfully interesting failure and had a really interesting vision to it - like I love some Terry Gilliam films that just didn't work, alas. By contrast I got told by everyone that the book was incredible and was underwhelmed - had I never heard anyone hype it I would have probably enjoyed it more.
I could see that happening. I think Dune also needs to be viewed through the time it was made - 60s sci fi was becoming rather interesting, but was still the era of, well, Star Trek. The world presented by Dune was so detailed and alien from our own, which was quite unusual at the time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 06:47:24 PM
Based on his work so far I think Zack Snyder should be banned from being anywhere near a camera, for example.
I think he's a fine cinematographer, terrible, terrible director.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 06:56:37 PMI could see that happening. I think Dune also needs to be viewed through the time it was made - 60s sci fi was becoming rather interesting, but was still the era of, well, Star Trek. The world presented by Dune was so detailed and alien from our own, which was quite unusual at the time.
I had the same experience with reading Watchmen to be honest. I think once you've been exposed to the hype/reputation and remove the context then for me it just didn't stack up.
I'm really not a comic book guy, but I read the Watchmen comic after seeing the movie, and thought it was really good.
You all know there is another attempt at Dune in pre-production right?
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 07:04:07 PM
You all know there is another attempt at Dune in pre-production right?
Give me a STO review dammit!
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:06:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2010, 07:04:07 PM
You all know there is another attempt at Dune in pre-production right?
Give me a STO review dammit!
I'm working on it!
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 06:47:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 06:39:13 PM
You could probably say the same thing about Lynch and Dune.
I don't know. I think Lynch's Dune is a wonderful failure precisely because of his creative vision which is distinct from the book (I prefer the film to the book).
I think we are agreeing while appearing to disagree. Lynch's movie was, indeed, a marvelous failure, but could have been so much better if it didn't have to carry the baggage of the book (which I infinitely prefer to the movie) with it. There was just so much to the book that Lynch didn't "get" and yet so much to the movie that Herbert would never have dared to think of, that a divorce seems natural and right.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:23:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 06:47:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 06:39:13 PM
You could probably say the same thing about Lynch and Dune.
I don't know. I think Lynch's Dune is a wonderful failure precisely because of his creative vision which is distinct from the book (I prefer the film to the book).
I think we are agreeing while appearing to disagree. Lynch's movie was, indeed, a marvelous failure, but could have been so much better if it didn't have to carry the baggage of the book (which I infinitely prefer to the movie) with it. There was just so much to the book that Lynch didn't "get" and yet so much to the movie that Herbert would never have dared to think of, that a divorce seems natural and right.
While I think I agree that Lynch wanted to go in a slightly different direction than the book, and maybe even a divorce would have been appropriate, I really don't think it's fair to say that Lynch didn't "get" the book.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 06:56:37 PM
I could see that happening. I think Dune also needs to be viewed through the time it was made - 60s sci fi was becoming rather interesting, but was still the era of, well, Star Trek. The world presented by Dune was so detailed and alien from our own, which was quite unusual at the time.
I think that is the power of the book - it was just so divorced from the SF of the pre-"New Vision" era.
I happen to think that it was actually quite good in its own right, but acknowledge that I am prejudiced from having lived through that time period. It might not seem so great in retrospect.
I could say the same thing about
Lord of the Rings, which I read in the Ace editions.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:26:03 PM
While I think I agree that Lynch wanted to go in a slightly different direction than the book, and maybe even a divorce would have been appropriate, I really don't think it's fair to say that Lynch didn't "get" the book.
We can agree to disagree, but I think that the movie supports my position far more than yours.
As Yi points out, the "scream guns" show that Lynch thought the Fremen answer was technology, when it was in fact the opposite of technology.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:26:03 PM
While I think I agree that Lynch wanted to go in a slightly different direction than the book, and maybe even a divorce would have been appropriate, I really don't think it's fair to say that Lynch didn't "get" the book.
We can agree to disagree, but I think that the movie supports my position far more than yours.
As Yi points out, the "scream guns" show that Lynch thought the Fremen answer was technology, when it was in fact the opposite of technology.
I thought the scream guns (which I certainly agree didn't particularily work as a plot device) was more an attempt to make the Atriedes/Fremen victory more understandable to the movie audience. Not that Lynch "didn't get" the book.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2010, 10:58:16 AM
I thought Trekker was what Trekkies call themselves.
Trekkers are Trekkies who are embarrassed about it. They basically claim to be "lite Trekkies;" in reality, they're the ones who'll still go to cons, just not in costume.
And really, STXI... Zachary Quinto can't act, Spock shouldn't be getting with Uhura, poor George Kirk seems to have been forgotten... other than that, the largest beef we Trekkies have with the movie is the way they shat all over the canon design ethos set down by Probert, Okuda, Drexler, and Eaves. Since TNG, we've
known what to expect from visual designs of the show. You could watch a second or two and think "that's Star Trek." This new stuff is blobby, it's an unknown quantity, and most Trekkies don't handle massive changes in the series real well.
Your favourite source in the universe, Wikipedia, quotes Lynch (even better - without citation!):
Quote from: wikipediaDirector David Lynch's decision to use modules was taken because he found the idea of the Weirding Way unworkable on film, stating he did not want to see "Kung-fu on sand dunes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirding_Module
I quote this not to say Lynch was correct, but that it was a deliberate choice made for the screen, and not that he didn't "get it".
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:34:44 PM
I thought the scream guns (which I certainly agree didn't particularily work as a plot device) was more an attempt to make the Atriedes/Fremen victory more understandable to the movie audience. Not that Lynch "didn't get" the book.
So you won't agree to disagree, but rather you will argue that Lynch understood but ignored his understanding of the book?
Okay. I will sipulate that Lynch may have "gotten' the book but ignored his understanding of so that he could be more successful in a pretence that he didn't get it.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Your favourite source in the universe, Wikipedia, quotes Lynch (even better - without citation!):
Quote from: wikipediaDirector David Lynch's decision to use modules was taken because he found the idea of the Weirding Way unworkable on film, stating he did not want to see "Kung-fu on sand dunes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirding_Module
I quote this not to say Lynch was correct, but that it was a deliberate choice made for the screen, and not that he didn't "get it".
But, according to http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3368.msg172565#msg172565, the reason he did it is because "he didn't get it."
We both have anonymous internet sources to back our contentions. I would contend that to "agree to disagree" is better than citing more such sources.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:48:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:34:44 PM
I thought the scream guns (which I certainly agree didn't particularily work as a plot device) was more an attempt to make the Atriedes/Fremen victory more understandable to the movie audience. Not that Lynch "didn't get" the book.
So you won't agree to disagree, but rather you will argue that Lynch understood but ignored his understanding of the book?
Yes.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Your favourite source in the universe, Wikipedia, quotes Lynch (even better - without citation!):
Quote from: wikipediaDirector David Lynch's decision to use modules was taken because he found the idea of the Weirding Way unworkable on film, stating he did not want to see "Kung-fu on sand dunes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirding_Module
I quote this not to say Lynch was correct, but that it was a deliberate choice made for the screen, and not that he didn't "get it".
But, according to http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3368.msg172565#msg172565, the reason he did it is because "he didn't get it."
We both have anonymous internet sources to back our contentions. I would contend that to "agree to disagree" is better than citing more such sources.
Your source is a convicted pedagoge. Insufficient credibility.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Your favourite source in the universe, Wikipedia, quotes Lynch (even better - without citation!):
Quote from: wikipediaDirector David Lynch's decision to use modules was taken because he found the idea of the Weirding Way unworkable on film, stating he did not want to see "Kung-fu on sand dunes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirding_Module
I quote this not to say Lynch was correct, but that it was a deliberate choice made for the screen, and not that he didn't "get it".
But, according to http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3368.msg172565#msg172565, the reason he did it is because "he didn't get it."
We both have anonymous internet sources to back our contentions. I would contend that to "agree to disagree" is better than citing more such sources.
Your source is a convicted pedagoge. Insufficient credibility.
Both are convicted. It is a tie, at worst, for me.
Are tou going to argue that Lynch "got' the concept of the book? :curious:
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 09:04:45 PM
Are tou going to argue that Lynch "got' the concept of the book? :curious:
Not really. I don't care. Whatever concepts Herbert had in mind when he was writing the book is irrelevant. The only things that are important are the ideas and feelings that the book evokes in me.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
THey should remake the prequel trilogy though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 06, 2010, 07:40:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2010, 10:58:16 AM
I thought Trekker was what Trekkies call themselves.
Trekkers are Trekkies who are embarrassed about it. They basically claim to be "lite Trekkies;" in reality, they're the ones who'll still go to cons, just not in costume.
And really, STXI... Zachary Quinto can't act, Spock shouldn't be getting with Uhura, poor George Kirk seems to have been forgotten... other than that, the largest beef we Trekkies have with the movie is the way they shat all over the canon design ethos set down by Probert, Okuda, Drexler, and Eaves. Since TNG, we've known what to expect from visual designs of the show. You could watch a second or two and think "that's Star Trek." This new stuff is blobby, it's an unknown quantity, and most Trekkies don't handle massive changes in the series real well.
I thought Quinto did a good job. Blobby?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
THey should remake the prequel trilogy though.
Do you actually think they could do a better job?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 09:21:56 PM
Blobby?
It lacks the fine lines of the original, or the sleekness of the movie version.
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 07:23:13 PM
There was just so much to the book that Lynch didn't "get" and yet so much to the movie that Herbert would never have dared to think of, that a divorce seems natural and right.
That is an excellent way of putting it. When I saw the movie I wondered why he had needlessly changed some of the basic concepts of the book but when I re-read the series years after seeing the movie I also realized that the Movie had a better feel for the way things ought to have looked.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 09:21:56 PM
I thought Quinto did a good job. Blobby?
Quinto did OK when he just tried to emulate Nimoy. Violent reaction to pent-up emotion or not, he overacted the temper tantrums. Badly. Spock Prime didn't even go that nuts during Ponn Farr.
Check out the side profiles of the ships here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
The Enterprise's nacelles remind me more of the original Planet Killer than the original Enterprise. The Mayflower is the only type visible on screen that makes sense (as a predecessor of the Miranda class); the Newton's also an okay design, but there's no sensible reason to have two engineering hulls, especially connected that loosely on outriggers. As near as I can figure, the ships amount to remakes of the following:
Armstrong: Nebula
Kelvin: Challenger
Mayflower: Miranda
Newton: Springfield
The problem with that is that half of those are embarrassing kitbashes that were designed for the battle aftermath of Wolf 359 and never were intended to see screen time as anything other than wreckage.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 06, 2010, 11:17:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 09:21:56 PM
I thought Quinto did a good job. Blobby?
Quinto did OK when he just tried to emulate Nimoy. Violent reaction to pent-up emotion or not, he overacted the temper tantrums. Badly. Spock Prime didn't even go that nuts during Ponn Farr.
Check out the side profiles of the ships here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
The Enterprise's nacelles remind me more of the original Planet Killer than the original Enterprise. The Mayflower is the only type visible on screen that makes sense (as a predecessor of the Miranda class); the Newton's also an okay design, but there's no sensible reason to have two engineering hulls, especially connected that loosely on outriggers. As near as I can figure, the ships amount to remakes of the following:
Armstrong: Nebula
Kelvin: Challenger
Mayflower: Miranda
Newton: Springfield
The problem with that is that half of those are embarrassing kitbashes that were designed for the battle aftermath of Wolf 359 and never were intended to see screen time as anything other than wreckage.
His home planet just got destroyed and his mother died right in front of him. Nothing close to that bad happened to Spock prime when he was young. I think given what happened it was understandable.
I don't have time right now to look at the ship design in detail, I'll look at it latter.
Also, his mom was super hot.
Grumbler, wth did Wikipedia ever did to you? Did Jimmy Wales touch you in a bad way?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:26:32 AM
Grumbler, wth did Wikipedia ever did to you? Did Jimmy Wales touch you in a bad way?
It masqueraded as a credible source, which is an affront to everyone.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:26:32 AM
Grumbler, wth did Wikipedia ever did to you? Did Jimmy Wales touch you in a bad way?
:huh: Wikipedia did nothing to me, and I did nothing to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does not claim to be an authoritative source of information. Some people fail to understand that, and I point that out to them.
It kinda surprises me that you think that I am somehow "bashing" Wikipedia or Wales when I point out something they themselves point out. It is like asking "why do you hate polar bears?" when someone says "polar bears live in the Arctic."
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2010, 07:27:57 AM
It masqueraded as a credible source, which is an affront to everyone.
Wikipedia has never masqueraded as a credible source. That's what is so funny about the Barristers of the world; their own source says "Wikipedia is probably the wrong source to cite
unless the researcher is a primary school pupil.(1)" I would disagree about even the primary school pupil bit, but will let that go if Barrister claims that he is a primary school student and wants the exemption.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation) - though note that I can cite Wiki in this case, according to Wikipedia: "If the topic under research is Wikipedia itself, then Wikipedia is the preferred source of information."
Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.
Voted Star Wars, I never really got into Star Trek at all.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 06, 2010, 11:17:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 06, 2010, 09:21:56 PM
I thought Quinto did a good job. Blobby?
Quinto did OK when he just tried to emulate Nimoy. Violent reaction to pent-up emotion or not, he overacted the temper tantrums. Badly. Spock Prime didn't even go that nuts during Ponn Farr.
Check out the side profiles of the ships here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
The Enterprise's nacelles remind me more of the original Planet Killer than the original Enterprise. The Mayflower is the only type visible on screen that makes sense (as a predecessor of the Miranda class); the Newton's also an okay design, but there's no sensible reason to have two engineering hulls, especially connected that loosely on outriggers. As near as I can figure, the ships amount to remakes of the following:
Armstrong: Nebula
Kelvin: Challenger
Mayflower: Miranda
Newton: Springfield
The problem with that is that half of those are embarrassing kitbashes that were designed for the battle aftermath of Wolf 359 and never were intended to see screen time as anything other than wreckage.
Damn, that guys Trek2009 faq is rantastic!
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:49:21 AM
Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.
:huh: Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure. I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 08:35:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:49:21 AM
Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.
:huh: Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure. I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.
On day 1 of EB, how different was it from todays Wikipedia?
Who are those people that write for EB? Why should I trust them more then I do Wiki?
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 07:33:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:26:32 AM
Grumbler, wth did Wikipedia ever did to you? Did Jimmy Wales touch you in a bad way?
:huh: Wikipedia did nothing to me, and I did nothing to Wikipedia.
[citation needed]
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 08:45:17 AM
On day 1 of EB, how different was it from todays Wikipedia?
Who are those people that write for EB? Why should I trust them more then I do Wiki?
The people who write for EB are subject matter experts. If you were a physicist, you would recognize the names of the people writing the physics articles, and their professional reputations were at stake in getting it right.
Wikipedia is written anonymously. There is no consequence for writing things that are even deliberately wrong.
That is a
fundamental difference. Wikipedia is not trying to be like EB. It trades away credibility to gain comprehensiveness and contemporaneousness.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 08:35:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 07, 2010, 07:49:21 AM
Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.
:huh: Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure. I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.
:ike:
Wikipedia is already more credible than EB.
Well, that's a good explanation.
I still like reading wikipedia aimlessly tho.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 05, 2010, 06:29:53 PM
Link. (http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html)
Star Wars is basically a cocktail of Dune, Campbell, early 20th Century Sci-Fi/Fantasy serials and The Hidden Fortress. This is common knowledge.
' Its common knowledge.'
Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 07, 2010, 09:14:28 AM
Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.
Spellus can't be sheltered enough to think it's 'common knowledge' among the general public, so I assume he means it's common knowledge among giant Star Wars nerds like I guess he may well be.... and, while I believe it's common knowledge (within that crowd) that Lucas borrowed heavily from The Hidden Fortress, I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.
It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments. Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.
Quote from: Caliga on January 07, 2010, 09:37:44 AM
I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.
I think he was even sued for alledged plagiarism.
Quote from: Caliga on January 07, 2010, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 07, 2010, 09:14:28 AM
Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.
Spellus can't be sheltered enough to think it's 'common knowledge' among the general public, so I assume he means it's common knowledge among giant Star Wars nerds like I guess he may well be.... and, while I believe it's common knowledge (within that crowd) that Lucas borrowed heavily from The Hidden Fortress, I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.
It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments. Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.
Just as it amuses me to see people try to be cool by slamming those who point out the origins of various popular "original entertainments" and distinguish between original and derivative thinking.
I don't think anyone who was actually knowledgeable and paying attention when
Star Wars came out missed the homages to
Dune (the book, obviously, not the movie) as well as the direct lifting of The Hero's Journey from Campbell, and the
Hidden Fortress influences. It didn't particularly bother me or anyone I talked to about it, though.
However, I think that you are right this is no longer "common knowledge" because no one except the fanboiz cares enough about
Star Wars any more to even think of it, and the fanboiz are generally not bright enough.
Star Trek
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg514.imageshack.us%2Fimg514%2F9467%2Ffit670.jpg&hash=6bba4c58b1491af4ed1de22f59b7ed0de4ac394b)
Maybe if that guy wasn't spending all his money on hookers, he could afford a decent computer.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2010, 10:39:47 AM
Maybe if that guy wasn't spending all his money on hookers, he could afford a decent computer.
He doesn't capitalize because he is having sex, and therefore typing one-handed.
Quote from: Caliga on January 07, 2010, 09:37:44 AM
It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments. Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.
Pointing out sources of stuff isn't just to say it's a whole ripoff or that it's not original, it can just be interesting and it can enhance understanding of both the source and the end product :)
:yes: When I realized that grumbler's source is his ass it saved me a lot of reading.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2010, 07:27:57 AM
It masqueraded as a credible source, which is an affront to everyone.
Wikipedia has never masqueraded as a credible source. That's what is so funny about the Barristers of the world; their own source says "Wikipedia is probably the wrong source to cite unless the researcher is a primary school pupil.(1)" I would disagree about even the primary school pupil bit, but will let that go if Barrister claims that he is a primary school student and wants the exemption.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation) - though note that I can cite Wiki in this case, according to Wikipedia: "If the topic under research is Wikipedia itself, then Wikipedia is the preferred source of information."
Grumbler, you really should have included the line right after the one you quoted:
Quote from: wikipedia.orgAs with all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is rarely appropriate as a citation for academic, business, or journalistic research.
It says it's inappropriate to cite for academic, business or journalism. It also says it's inappropriate not because of it's open format, but because it's a tertiary source.
And it's certainly right. If I'm writing a factum for the Court of Appeal I'm certainly not going to use a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Hell I'm reluctant to use a secondary source such as a thorough legal textbook. I want to use only primary sources, which in my line of work is caselaw.
However, I put a hell of a lot less work into bullshitting around on languish. As languish does nto qualify as academia, business or jousnalism, I will continue to cite wikipedia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2010, 11:32:52 AM
Pointing out sources of stuff isn't just to say it's a whole ripoff or that it's not original, it can just be interesting and it can enhance understanding of both the source and the end product :)
Yes, true. But is that the reason anyone would do so on Languish? -_-
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:12:49 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 07, 2010, 11:22:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 08:20:14 AM
rantastic!
Totally Rawsome!
:yeahright:
Tim is correct. It should have been:
Totarry Rawsome!
I'm positive you guys know this, but that wasn't a typo, that was a purposeful mash up the words rant and fantastic.
It's funnier as an Asian mispronunciation.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 11:55:13 AM
Grumbler, you really should have included the line right after the one you quoted:
Quote from: wikipedia.orgAs with all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is rarely appropriate as a citation for academic, business, or journalistic research.
No, I shouldn't have, since this adds nothing to the argument.
QuoteIt says it's inappropriate to cite for academic, business or journalism. It also says it's inappropriate not because of it's open format, but because it's a tertiary source.
It says that encyclopedias in general are not appropriate citations for those purposes. It doesn't say that Wiki is suitable as a citation outside those circles.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 11:55:13 AM
... I will continue to cite wikipedia.
And i will continue to mock you when you do act like a primary-schooler. :cool:
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2010, 11:38:42 AM
:yes: When I realized that grumbler's source is his ass it saved me a lot of reading.
I suppose that it isn't a TBR violation when it is
you who reveals that you are my source. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 06:15:10 PM
We've discussed nearly every geeky topic under the sun, but I don't think we've ever done this one (plus I've been brushing up on my Star Trek geekdom with the new MMO coming out).
Now I know Dr. Who has it's fans, Battlestar Galactica was nifty, Buck Rodgers has golden age cool, and Babylon 5 has grumbler. But we all know that in the end there are two towering behemoths of science fiction-dom.
So which is your favourite: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Luke Skywalker, or Captain Kirk?
The Millenium Falcon, or the Enterprise?
Yeoman Rand in a 60s miniskirt, or Princess Leia in a gold bikini?
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!, or KHHHHAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!
Star Wars has the best expanded universe. Nearly everything is cannon in it, and I quite like that.
Reading a Star Trek book will left you meh.
But even the bad Star Wars book has some merit on their own :)
Star Fleet Battles vs Fasa's Starship combat simulator. :nerd:
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2010, 11:38:42 AM
:yes: When I realized that grumbler's source is his ass it saved me a lot of reading.
I suppose that it isn't a TBR violation when it is you who reveals that you are my source. :cool:
I am a source of joy. :)
SW also has the best video games.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 02:09:46 PM
Star Fleet Battles vs Fasa's Starship combat simulator. :nerd:
FASA's Starship simulator. :nerd:
SFB just took too long, with too many rules.
That being said, WEG did do a x-wing / tie-fighter board game that was also pretty cool.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 02:09:46 PM
Star Fleet Battles vs Fasa's Starship combat simulator. :nerd:
FASA's Starship simulator. :nerd:
SFB just took too long, with too many rules.
That being said, WEG did do a x-wing / tie-fighter board game that was also pretty cool.
SFB went to hell when they added the kitchen sink to the games. ECM? FUCK THAT SHIT.
I have not read any of the replies but wish to be on record as saying that anyone who picked star wars as a series over star trek as a series is a FUCKTARD and likely the inbred progeny of first cousins or full blooded siblings.
While star wars a new hope and the empire strikes back are masterpieces and were groundbreaking in their day, we can never forgive lucas for star wars 1 or 2 or jar jar binks or the ewoks.
NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET
:weep:
ohhh and wikipedia is garbage
might as well cite to the shoe shine guy
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2010, 04:35:09 PM
I have not read any of the replies but wish to be on record as saying that anyone who picked star wars as a series over star trek as a series is a FUCKTARD and likely the inbred progeny of first cousins or full blooded siblings.
While star wars a new hope and the empire strikes back are masterpieces and were groundbreaking in their day, we can never forgive lucas for star wars 1 or 2 or jar jar binks or the ewoks.
NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET
:weep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache5.art.com%2Fp%2FLRG%2F12%2F1286%2F51BO000Z%2Fjar-jar-binks.jpg&hash=6974bc875932ae9194c9c40f4d927466da43d048)
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2010, 04:45:44 PM
ohhh and wikipedia is garbage
might as well cite to the shoe shine guy
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsharetv.org%2Fimages%2Fpolice_squad%2Fjohnny_the_snitch-char.jpg&hash=5ca55a6d31f398b356d0264a70b5c826112a835a)
I dunno anything about it
@sav :D
Picard is a goat fucker.
Ide is simulating Riker on the back of my head now. :lol:
Quote from: Korea on January 07, 2010, 07:19:37 PM
Ide is simulating Riker on the back of my head now. :lol:
He(aka number 1) is pissing on you?
He is taking a dump on your head, just like Frakes career went into the shitter?
You kids and your sex games.
The ewoks aren't actually that bad. You guys need to quit being such a bunch of faggots and untwist your panties.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 07:22:32 PM
He(aka number 1) is pissing on you?
He is taking a dump on your head, just like Frakes career went into the shitter?
You kids and your sex games.
More likely: http://rikerlean.ytmnd.com/
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
Could only improve. The new trilogy was at least as good as the original.
Quote from: Maximus on January 07, 2010, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Are you kidding? They can't remake Star Wars. That would be an attrocity so great that the new trilogy would pale in comparison.
Could only improve. The new trilogy was at least as good as the original.
The original screenplay prior to editing, maybe; otherwise, bite thy tongue.
Giant AT-AT walkers smashing Dack Ralter's remains in the downed snowspeeder > Padme losing strategic shreds of clothing while Jango Fett does his best not to be squashed by tanks that look like roaches.
Luke jumping off into the abyss to escape Vader after having his hand cut off > Anakin cowering like a little girl in the corner while Yoda does his dirty work, only to let Dooku get away.
And for chrissakes...
R2-D2 FIXING THE HYPERDRIVE ON THE FALCON > R2-D2 FLYING ACROSS A FREAKING FACTORY. If the little shit were built to be maneuverable in space, he wouldn't have to be strapped into a freakin' cradle in Luke's fighter. :glare:
How did I not find about this until now!? :o
I fail at the internet! Revoke my nerd card immediately! :weep:
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html
You may want to check out:
http://startrekofgodsandmen.com/main/
Cast
* Walter Koenig as Pavel Chekov
* Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura
* Alan Ruck as John Harriman
* Tim Russ as Tuvok
* Garrett Wang as Garan
* J.G. Hertzler as Koval
* Chase Masterson as Xela
* Gary Graham as Ragnar
* Crystal Allen as the navigator
* Ethan Phillips as the Data Clerk
* Lawrence Montaigne as Stonn
* Cirroc Lofton as Sevar
* William Wellman as Charlie Evans
* Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand
* James Cawley as Commander Kirk
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2010, 01:43:24 AM
You may want to check out:
http://startrekofgodsandmen.com/main/
Cast
* Walter Koenig as Pavel Chekov
* Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura
* Alan Ruck as John Harriman
* Tim Russ as Tuvok
* Garrett Wang as Garan
* J.G. Hertzler as Koval
* Chase Masterson as Xela
* Gary Graham as Ragnar
* Crystal Allen as the navigator
* Ethan Phillips as the Data Clerk
* Lawrence Montaigne as Stonn
* Cirroc Lofton as Sevar
* William Wellman as Charlie Evans
* Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand
* James Cawley as Commander Kirk
I've watched the 1st 8 minutes and so far pretty good. "A code 1 distress call and the only available starship is a museum?" :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: Korea on January 07, 2010, 07:19:37 PM
Ide is simulating Riker on the back of my head now. :lol:
He(aka number 1) is pissing on you?
He is taking a dump on your head, just like Frakes career went into the shitter?
You kids and your sex games.
:lol:
He was doing the crotch pose right by my head.
What is this thing you call "crotch pose," Captain Kirk?
Star Wars is lefty propaganda.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2010, 07:31:06 AM
Star Wars is lefty propaganda.
And Star Wars is an unoriginal piece of tripe by an untalented hack that just happened to be scraped out of the bottom of the barrel by a couple of very talented ghost writers. What's your point?
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2010, 07:39:54 PM
The ewoks aren't actually that bad. You guys need to quit being such a bunch of faggots and untwist your panties.
:lol: Sorry, Neil, but only you teenage girls are gonna buy this line. The Ewoks are silly bad indeed, and should have stayed on the Saturday cartoon shows you all watch. They are not the worst thing in Star Wars, but they are definitely the worst thing in the first three movies.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 08, 2010, 08:55:11 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2010, 07:31:06 AM
Star Wars is lefty propaganda.
And Star Wars is an unoriginal piece of tripe by an untalented hack that just happened to be scraped out of the bottom of the barrel by a couple of very talented ghost writers. What's your point?
Let me add my voice to the chorus: Star Wars is OK for children but grown men liking it is just sad and weird. There are many books and movies made for kids that are enjoyable for adults too; Star Wars isn't one of them.
Quote from: Siege on January 08, 2010, 07:31:06 AM
Star Wars is lefty propaganda.
They have no money in Star Trek. The communists already won in that universe. :(
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 09:02:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2010, 07:39:54 PM
The ewoks aren't actually that bad. You guys need to quit being such a bunch of faggots and untwist your panties.
:lol: Sorry, Neil, but only you teenage girls are gonna buy this line. The Ewoks are silly bad indeed, and should have stayed on the Saturday cartoon shows you all watch. They are not the worst thing in Star Wars, but they are definitely the worst thing in the first three movies.
Wrong. The guy at the end of Empire Strikes Back that says 'Yes sir!' to Admiral Piett is the worst thing in the first three movies. The Ewoks played a minor but essential role. I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
Wrong. The guy at the end of Empire Strikes Back that says 'Yes sir!' to Admiral Piett is the worst thing in the first three movies. The Ewoks played a minor but essential role. I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
Seriously. Don't punish the characters for the sins of the costume designer. If, say, a hundred thousand pandas suddenly decided to lynch a couple squads of special forces guys, they'd be lucky to leave mostly uninjured, too.
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
(1) the choice of the teddy bear as the archetype for them, which totally destroyed any chance of suspension of disbelief for anyone over age 8;
(2) the choice to costume them in outfits that looked to hideously fake that even 8-and-unders gagged.
The only thing they could have done to top the Ewoks as presented would have been to have the Millennium Falcon represented by a turd with sparklers stuck in it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
(1) the choice of the teddy bear as the archetype for them, which totally destroyed any chance of suspension of disbelief for anyone over age 8;
(2) the choice to costume them in outfits that looked to hideously fake that even 8-and-unders gagged.
The only thing they could have done to top the Ewoks as presented would have been to have the Millennium Falcon represented by a turd with sparklers stuck in it.
Grumbles, you didn't bother reading the post right above yours, did you?
Does the "fault" lie with the costume designer or does it lie with Lucas? I had thought Lucas wanted the Ewoks to be cute teddy bear clones because he suspected (correctly) they could sell shitloads of tie-in toys.
I don't personally have a huge problem with the Ewoks, but then again I first saw ROTJ when I was 8 years old. If I saw the movie for the first time today, I would probably feel differently. I liked ROTJ but it was without a doubt the worst of the original trilogy.
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
Quote from: Caliga on January 08, 2010, 10:27:33 AM
Does the "fault" lie with the costume designer or does it lie with Lucas? I had thought Lucas wanted the Ewoks to be cute teddy bear clones because he suspected (correctly) they could sell shitloads of tie-in toys.
I don't personally have a huge problem with the Ewoks, but then again I first saw ROTJ when I was 8 years old. If I saw the movie for the first time today, I would probably feel differently. I liked ROTJ but it was without a doubt the worst of the original trilogy.
I think the official Lucas line (at least in an interview that I had as part of the collector's edition VHS THX remastered tapes) was that he originally intended to have the Empire brought down by (technologically impaired) Wookies, but that by Episode VI Wookies had been established as tech savvy, space flying characters. Hence "short" versions of Wookies, with even the name similar (syllables basically switched around). Wook-E = E-Wook => Ewok.
The idea was to have a low tech people effectively oppose a high tech superpower, in reference to how some people supposedly saw 'Nam.
Of course in later statements Lucas backpedalled, claiming that the Ewok support was mostly a diversion to draw Imperial troops away from the bunker entrance, and not a full fledged battle + victory of the sides.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
(1) the choice of the teddy bear as the archetype for them, which totally destroyed any chance of suspension of disbelief for anyone over age 8;
(2) the choice to costume them in outfits that looked to hideously fake that even 8-and-unders gagged.
The only thing they could have done to top the Ewoks as presented would have been to have the Millennium Falcon represented by a turd with sparklers stuck in it.
I don't see what's so shocking about bipedal omnivores who resemble flat-faced bears fighting (and getting killed in great numbers by) Imperial troops. It's more plausible than some of the other alien designs. And given that they were mostly nude, I don't think there's a lot of room to complain about the costuming.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 08, 2010, 10:19:01 AM
Grumbles, you didn't bother reading the post right above yours, did you?
Yes, i have read it. Why? Did you bother to read this post? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 03:15:28 PM
I don't see what's so shocking about bipedal omnivores who resemble flat-faced bears fighting (and getting killed in great numbers by) Imperial troops.
Who said anything about "shocking?"
QuoteIt's more plausible than some of the other alien designs. And given that they were mostly nude, I don't think there's a lot of room to complain about the costuming.
:lol: No, the actors playing Ewoks were not "mostly nude!" They were inside the most absurd-looking costumes I have seen in a big-budget film.
Grumbler, your argument makes no sense: "the characters are awful because their costume design isn't up to snuff." Just because you personally don't like the route the costume designer took doesn't mean they're poor characters. I wouldn't call them the best supporting characters in the world, either, but there's been far worse, especially in science fiction.
In fact, Trek has its fair share of horrible support. Klingons in TOS are pretty lame, Vulcans took a nosedive after Enterprise was through with them, and there wasn't even a serious attempt to characterize the Remans from Nemesis.
Also, you're assuming "big budget" means "big costume budget." Film costume designers have been bitching for years that this isn't the case. I'd imagine that by the time you're done paying the cast and crew's salaries and paying the outside VFX unit, you'll find there's precious little to go toward costume development.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 03:15:28 PM
I don't see what's so shocking about bipedal omnivores who resemble flat-faced bears fighting (and getting killed in great numbers by) Imperial troops.
Who said anything about "shocking?"
If you were able to suspend disbelief for the rest of the movie, but then were suddenly unable to do so because of the appearance of the ewoks, I would say that 'shocking' is an adequate word to use. I could also use 'jolting' if you prefer. But I will not, because it is my decision to make, not yours.
QuoteQuoteIt's more plausible than some of the other alien designs. And given that they were mostly nude, I don't think there's a lot of room to complain about the costuming.
:lol: No, the actors playing Ewoks were not "mostly nude!" They were inside the most absurd-looking costumes I have seen in a big-budget film.
The ewoks themselves were mostly nude. And the ewok costumes weren't bad at all by the standards of the time. Also, I feel that your use of an exclamation point demeans you.
So, what's your next move? Go after Alien because of the shitty-looking costume?
You're just trying to be too cool for school. It's kind of pathetic. If you had children with Hortlund, I'd pity them.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 08, 2010, 03:41:03 PM
Grumbler, your argument makes no sense: "the characters are awful because their costume design isn't up to snuff." Just because you personally don't like the route the costume designer took doesn't mean they're poor characters.
DontSayBanana, your argument makes no sense. "The fact that the costumes loo incredibly fake doesn't mean their design is not up to snuff." The Ewoks are not credible as a race, both because their resemblance to teddy bears ruins their role as serious protagonists, and because their costumes lack credibility: they are obviously midgets dressed in costumes.
QuoteI wouldn't call them the best supporting characters in the world, either, but there's been far worse, especially in science fiction.
It is probably good that no one is arguing what you are not arguing, then.
QuoteAlso, you're assuming "big budget" means "big costume budget."
I am? Thanks. I didn't know that. In fact, I thought I was arguing against the Ewoks as characters because of their crappy costumes, and
you were arguing the opposite! :huh:
Anything else I am assuming that is the opposite of what I am saying?
And what are the implications of assuming that "'big budget'
does not necessarily mean big costume 'budget'", if complaining about cheesy costumes necessitates that one must be assuming that "'big budget' means 'big costume budget'?" That's not clear to me.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
The Special Effects hold up against any CGI created today. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2010, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
The Special Effects hold up against any CGI created today. :huh:
In many ways I prefer the old special effects.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2010, 06:41:14 AM
What is this thing you call "crotch pose," Captain Kirk?
Since Riker has an injured back he can't stand straight so there were several times in TNG that Riker would stand with one of his legs resting on something and his crotch would be right in Data (or whoevers) face.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
My first introduction to star wars was only about 5 years ago when I was 17.
Quote from: Korea on January 08, 2010, 06:12:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
My first introduction to star wars was only about 5 years ago when I was 17.
Gay Fox is too emo to like cool things.
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 06:22:26 PM
Quote from: Korea on January 08, 2010, 06:12:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
My first introduction to star wars was only about 5 years ago when I was 17.
Gay Fox is too emo to like cool things.
Yeah, I thought the movies were great.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2010, 10:31:31 AM
If your first introduction to Star Wars is today. There is no way, in any order, that any of the movies it's an incredible pile of outdated suck.
Agreed, the originals aren't any better than the new ones. There's just a lot of nostalgia attached to them.
Quote from: Maximus on January 08, 2010, 07:11:12 PM
Agreed, the originals aren't any better than the new ones. There's just a lot of nostalgia attached to them.
Which explains there original popularity how? The originals were filled with, er, originality and badass. Hans was badass. Hans shooting Tie fighters out of the Millenium Falcon was badass. Darth was badass. The Death Star was badass. The imperial walkers were totally badass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2010, 07:33:07 PM
Which explains there original popularity how? The originals were filled with, er, originality and badass. Hans was badass. Hans shooting Tie fighters out of the Millenium Falcon was badass. Darth was badass. The Death Star was badass. The imperial walkers were totally badass.
It probably doesn't explain the popularity of the originals as much as the lack thereof in the later trilogy among the same people. I don't know, the originals may have been good for their time(though I doubt it), but I found the acting bad and the story uncompelling. Same as the later trilogy. Guess I don't get the badass part.
Trek nerds: When did Kirk's middle name change to Tiberius? I'm going through Season 1 of TOS and in one episode, Where No Man Has Gone Before I believe, his tombstone says James R. Kirk. Whats up with that?
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 08, 2010, 07:58:17 PM
Trek nerds: When did Kirk's middle name change to Tiberius? I'm going through Season 1 of TOS and in one episode, Where No Man Has Gone Before I believe, his tombstone says James R. Kirk. Whats up with that?
Random Blooper according to Memory Alpha.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk#Ambiguities
Quote from: Maximus on January 08, 2010, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2010, 07:33:07 PM
Which explains there original popularity how? The originals were filled with, er, originality and badass. Hans was badass. Hans shooting Tie fighters out of the Millenium Falcon was badass. Darth was badass. The Death Star was badass. The imperial walkers were totally badass.
It probably doesn't explain the popularity of the originals as much as the lack thereof in the later trilogy among the same people. I don't know, the originals may have been good for their time(though I doubt it), but I found the acting bad and the story uncompelling. Same as the later trilogy. Guess I don't get the badass part.
Lucas was on Jon Stewart this week. He said that there's basically three groups of fans now. First are the ones who grew up with the old movies and hate the new ones. Second are the young generation who grew up with CGI movies and prefer the new ones, finding the old ones cheap looking and boring (which stewart anecdotally confirmed in that his son loves Ep.I and Jar Jar, even htough he tried to explain to him how awful it was). Third are the ones that mainly follow the Clone wars cartoons.
Wow, how can ST be in the lead? I always found the ST following to be much bigger idiots than SW fans. The main line in favor of Star Trek usually went like "The technological stuff is pretty accurate". I never cared for that, it's science fiction ffs. I prefer to have aliens looking alien and not like men/women in cheap costumes.
The aliens in SW are better,
the action is cooler,
the CGI are far superior,
the mythical bits of SW beat the tech stuff of ST,
the Empire's badassness has nothing to be compared to in ST,
SW fans are far less annoying than trekkies,
SW is a childhood dream, SF is just a TV series certain geeky kids liked.
That said, away from a child's viewpoint I find the old SW movies just as bad as the new ones. I still love them but mainly because they are a space fairy tale I used to love as a kid.
I just watched The Killing Game and am currently watching Threshhold....how did voyager stay on the air?? :yuk:
Quote from: syk on January 09, 2010, 06:55:08 AM
Wow, how can ST be in the lead? I always found the ST following to be much bigger idiots than SW fans. The main line in favor of Star Trek usually went like "The technological stuff is pretty accurate". I never cared for that, it's science fiction ffs. I prefer to have aliens looking alien and not like men/women in cheap costumes.
The aliens in SW are better,
the action is cooler,
the CGI are far superior,
the mythical bits of SW beat the tech stuff of ST,
the Empire's badassness has nothing to be compared to in ST,
SW fans are far less annoying than trekkies,
SW is a childhood dream, SF is just a TV series certain geeky kids liked.
That said, away from a child's viewpoint I find the old SW movies just as bad as the new ones. I still love them but mainly because they are a space fairy tale I used to love as a kid.
Agree that, from a kid's point of view, SW is better. If you are thinking of these shows as you remember them from your childhood, then I can understand why you would exclaim "Wow, how can ST be in the lead?"
The rest of us are not able to channel your childhood, though, so our question would be "Wow, how could syk not understand why ST would be in the lead?"
If I had two hours or so to spend watching SF and my choices were the best 120 minutes of Star Wars and the best 120 minutes of Star Trek, there is no doubt in my mind that the two hours of ST would be superior, by far. There is simply so much more there to choose from.
Yesterday's Enterprise by itself is probably more entertaining and moving than any of the Star Wars movies.
Quote from: Korea on January 09, 2010, 12:43:13 PM
I just watched The Killing Game and am currently watching Threshhold....how did voyager stay on the air?? :yuk:
Voyager stayed on the air because it had a major studio backing it and keeping it on the studio's channel. That show cured my Trek Jones, fer sher. I think I may have gotten through a half-dozen episodes before the gagging became constant.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: Korea on January 09, 2010, 12:43:13 PM
I just watched The Killing Game and am currently watching Threshhold....how did voyager stay on the air?? :yuk:
Voyager stayed on the air because it had a major studio backing it and keeping it on the studio's channel. That show cured my Trek Jones, fer sher. I think I may have gotten through a half-dozen episodes before the gagging became constant.
These were the first Voyager episodes I've ever seen....I can't say it would be the last though because it's just so mind bogglingly fucking retarded in a semi entertaining sort of way.
Voyager was the pinnacle of the Star Trek series.
Quote from: Korea on January 09, 2010, 12:59:00 PM
These were the first Voyager episodes I've ever seen....I can't say it would be the last though because it's just so mind bogglingly fucking retarded in a semi entertaining sort of way.
I think they had four of their two shuttles destroyed just in the first six episodes.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 01:02:56 PM
Quote from: Korea on January 09, 2010, 12:59:00 PM
These were the first Voyager episodes I've ever seen....I can't say it would be the last though because it's just so mind bogglingly fucking retarded in a semi entertaining sort of way.
I think they had four of their two shuttles destroyed just in the first six episodes.
Replicating a shuttle craft from thin air is much more within the realm of possibility than FTL technology.
But of course the latter is a sacred Trekkie cow. :rolleyes:
Scifi without ftl(or a workaround like wormholes) is pretty boring. No aliens, no galaxy-spanning civilizations.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 01:42:17 PM
Scifi without ftl(or a workaround like wormholes) is pretty boring. No aliens, no galaxy-spanning civilizations.
OK Tim.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 01:42:17 PM
Scifi without ftl(or a workaround like wormholes) is pretty boring. No aliens, no galaxy-spanning civilizations.
Please don't feed the troll. kthxbai :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 01:42:17 PM
Scifi without ftl(or a workaround like wormholes) is pretty boring. No aliens, no galaxy-spanning civilizations.
Your weak imagination sickens me. Some of the most imaginative sci-fi out there is STL.
Quote from: Neil on January 09, 2010, 02:54:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 01:42:17 PM
Scifi without ftl(or a workaround like wormholes) is pretty boring. No aliens, no galaxy-spanning civilizations.
Your weak imagination sickens me. Some of the most imaginative sci-fi out there is STL.
Sure, there's gonna be some good stuff out there, but mostly it'll just be alt history stuff about the modern world with slightly cooler gadgets.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 05:36:57 PM
Sure, there's gonna be some good stuff out there, but mostly it'll just be alt history stuff about the modern world with slightly cooler gadgets.
STL spaceflight stories are glorious.
Quote from: Neil on January 09, 2010, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2010, 05:36:57 PM
Sure, there's gonna be some good stuff out there, but mostly it'll just be alt history stuff about the modern world with slightly cooler gadgets.
STL spaceflight stories are glorious.
Some have built Nobel prizes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniara
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
I don't see what anyone could possibly hold against them.
(1) the choice of the teddy bear as the archetype for them, which totally destroyed any chance of suspension of disbelief for anyone over age 8;
(2) the choice to costume them in outfits that looked to hideously fake that even 8-and-unders gagged.
The only thing they could have done to top the Ewoks as presented would have been to have the Millennium Falcon represented by a turd with sparklers stuck in it.
:lmfao:
Quote from: syk on January 09, 2010, 06:55:08 AM
Wow, how can ST be in the lead? I always found the ST following to be much bigger idiots than SW fans. The main line in favor of Star Trek usually went like "The technological stuff is pretty accurate".
The technological stuff in Star Trek is horribly inaccurate; but one of the key differences is how the two series deal with technology. In Star Trek technology is usually the solution to problems and often the
deus ex machina . Once boy genius, Wesley Crusher, reverses the sub-atomic resonance of the anti-matter injectors to reveal a temporal flux in the plasma conduits the Enterprise will be saved. In Star Wars technology is often portrayed as sinister and evil; Darth Vader is called more machine than man, Luke must let go of his reliance in technology and trust in the Force in order to destroy the Death Star and even Darth Vader calls the Death Star a "Technological Terror."
Quote from: Savonarola on January 11, 2010, 05:04:39 PM
Quote from: syk on January 09, 2010, 06:55:08 AM
Wow, how can ST be in the lead? I always found the ST following to be much bigger idiots than SW fans. The main line in favor of Star Trek usually went like "The technological stuff is pretty accurate".
The technological stuff in Star Trek is horribly inaccurate; but one of the key differences is how the two series deal with technology. In Star Trek technology is usually the solution to problems and often the deus ex machina which saves the day. Once boy genius, Wesley Crusher, reverses the sub-atomic resonance of the anti-matter injectors to reveal a temporal flux in the plasma conduits the Enterprise will be saved. In Star Wars technology is often portrayed as sinister and evil; Darth Vader is called more machine than man, Luke must let go of his reliance in technology and trust in the Force in order to destroy the Death Star and even Darth Vader calls the Death Star a "Technological Terror."
I never thought of it that way...
Star Trek. :)
Always the cooler gadgets, the halodeck, and amazing aliens. Plus, Capt' Picard. :wub:
Yes but in reality, "reversing the sub-atomic resonance of the anti-matter injectors to reveal a temporal flux in the plasma conduits of the Enterprise" translates to "I was way too lazy to write the plot"
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2010, 05:21:09 PM
I never thought of it that way...
It's a fairly interesting concept, but breaks down when you consider that the Borg are a Star Trek 'species', as well as the plot of the first Star Trek film. The comparisons would work better if there was magic in the Star Trek universe, which I guess you *could* say there is in the form of the Q species, but IIRC the idea there was that the species was so advanced that its technology appeared to be magic to lesser species.
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 06:03:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2010, 05:21:09 PM
I never thought of it that way...
It's a fairly interesting concept, but breaks down when you consider that the Borg are a Star Trek 'species', as well as the plot of the first Star Trek film. The comparisons would work better if there was magic in the Star Trek universe, which I guess you *could* say there is in the form of the Q species, but IIRC the idea there was that the species was so advanced that its technology appeared to be magic to lesser species.
If that's what they wanted to portray, then they should have done an episode where they show things from the Q point of view that shed some light on their technology. Unless I missed an episode they never did that and Q (in the episodes I've seen) is basically portrayed as a classic trickster God of myth, and an extremely powerful one at that.
They're an especially egrigious example of this trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoSuchThingAsSpaceJesus
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 06:03:26 AM
It's a fairly interesting concept, but breaks down when you consider that the Borg are a Star Trek 'species', as well as the plot of the first Star Trek film. The comparisons would work better if there was magic in the Star Trek universe, which I guess you *could* say there is in the form of the Q species, but IIRC the idea there was that the species was so advanced that its technology appeared to be magic to lesser species.
I fucking hated the Q episodes. Not as much as the Luzxanna Troi episodes, but close (though I loved the way John de Lancie played him). The Q were gods, pure and simple. The writers didn't want to have to deal with any limits on his powers or knowledge, so he had none, other than those introduced in specific episodes (and always removed by the end of the ep).
However, I don't consider this a feature of the ST universe. If this were a just world, and every copy of every Q episode were locked into a box and fired into the sun, the ST universe would remain unchanged. Q was a plot device for lazy hack writers, nothing more.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.sbnation.com%2Fimported_assets%2F108878%2Fquagmire.jpg&hash=08a3170b09bf367cf271c15ba1dcc327ac28d9d5)
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.
I agree... I hated Q also (the concept, not de Lancie).
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 08:08:22 AM
I agree... I hated Q also (the concept, not de Lancie).
We all agree! :o
:D I guess the one point where I differ with grumbler is that, while I wish it were not canon, since I don't get to control what is and isn't ST canon I do consider it canon (much as I hate the Q concept). :(
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 10:31:46 AM
:D I guess the one point where I differ with grumbler is that, while I wish it were not canon, since I don't get to control what is and isn't ST canon I do consider it canon (much as I hate the Q concept). :(
I do like the fact, that as Ed alluded too, that Q brought the Enterprise in contact with the Borg. Watch that episode a few weeks ago, still great.
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 10:31:46 AM
:D I guess the one point where I differ with grumbler is that, while I wish it were not canon, since I don't get to control what is and isn't ST canon I do consider it canon (much as I hate the Q concept). :(
Why would you think we differ in this? I didn't even use the term "canon" so any assumptions I make about what is canon would be unsupported, would they not?
The Q concept is canon, just not anything I think of as a feature of the ST universe. One could, as I note, eliminate it entirely and leave the ST universe utterly unaffected.
I feel the same way about the race with half-black-half-white faces, BTW. They are canon but not a feature.
I liked Q. He led to some amusing episodes. They were meant to be more lighthearted obviously, and a steady diet of them would be dull, but as an appearance once a season or so they were fun. :)
Because that's where TNG could sometimes fall - they had plenty of just plain dull episodes.
And it's not as if Star Trek had any shortage of god-like beings.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 01:27:39 PM
The Q concept is canon, just not anything I think of as a feature of the ST universe. One could, as I note, eliminate it entirely and leave the ST universe utterly unaffected.
Since Q features prominently in the both the series premiere and season finale, plus of course introduced the Borg to the world of Star Trek, I'm not sure I can agree with your statement.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 01:47:40 PM
Since Q features prominently in the both the series premiere and season finale, plus of course introduced the Borg to the world of Star Trek, I'm not sure I can agree with your statement.
Most of us try very hard not to think of the premiere or finale of
TNG, I suspect, and the Borg could easily have been introduced in any number of ways.
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 06:03:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2010, 05:21:09 PM
I never thought of it that way...
It's a fairly interesting concept, but breaks down when you consider that the Borg are a Star Trek 'species', as well as the plot of the first Star Trek film. The comparisons would work better if there was magic in the Star Trek universe, which I guess you *could* say there is in the form of the Q species, but IIRC the idea there was that the species was so advanced that its technology appeared to be magic to lesser species.
Star Trek has a number of instances where technology malfunctions and tries to kill people; like in the first movie, or the time the killer robot came on the Enterprise and Kirk exposed it to a paradox which caused it to explode. I don't think these are sinister in the way that Darth Vader is sinister. The Borg are an exception, though they're technological monsters that are terrifying the way the Death Star is; I'll concede Star Trek does not always portray technology in a favorable light, but it usually does.
Star Trek has plenty of aliens with mysterious powers which are essentially magic. In addition to the Q there was that kid on TOS who could melt things with his mind, or Apollo, or telepathic Betazoids; but that's besides the point. Technology can be portrayed as sinister in universes without magic, as it is in Frankenstein or the new BSG.
Star Trek - like the child of the 60s that it was - had a fundamentally optimistic view of humanity, its possibilities, and its perfectability. So naturally technology as a product of human effort and imagination, is mostly going to be a positive force, though occasionally perverted by wicked.
Star Wars OTOH begins with the assumption of decadence or at least cyclicality (the good old days of the republic are long past now . . .) where the forces of evil have material and technical superirority. Different premise.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 01:47:40 PM
Since Q features prominently in the both the series premiere and season finale, plus of course introduced the Borg to the world of Star Trek, I'm not sure I can agree with your statement.
Most of us try very hard not to think of the premiere or finale of TNG, I suspect, and the Borg could easily have been introduced in any number of ways.
I thought the finale was fun. The premier was awkward, but series premieres often are.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 01:27:39 PM
Why would you think we differ in this? I didn't even use the term "canon" so any assumptions I make about what is canon would be unsupported, would they not?
Right, you didn't say "canon" but I assumed that's what you were getting at. Bad assumption on my part, sorry.
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 06:32:49 PM
Right, you didn't say "canon" but I assumed that's what you were getting at. Bad assumption on my part, sorry.
We are on the same page, then.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 12, 2010, 05:43:34 PM
Star Trek has a number of instances where technology malfunctions and tries to kill people; like in the first movie, or the time the killer robot came on the Enterprise and Kirk exposed it to a paradox which caused it to explode. I don't think these are sinister in the way that Darth Vader is sinister. The Borg are an exception, though they're technological monsters that are terrifying the way the Death Star is; I'll concede Star Trek does not always portray technology in a favorable light, but it usually does.
Star Trek has plenty of aliens with mysterious powers which are essentially magic. In addition to the Q there was that kid on TOS who could melt things with his mind, or Apollo, or telepathic Betazoids; but that's besides the point. Technology can be portrayed as sinister in universes without magic, as it is in Frankenstein or the new BSG.
Lots of good, thought-provoking stuff from you in this thread, Sav. Thanks for it all, and keep it up.
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2010, 10:36:23 AM
The idea was to have a low tech people effectively oppose a high tech superpower, in reference to how some people supposedly saw 'Nam.
I saw Narn. Low tech people who use lots of big guns and are willing to take huge casualties. I curse Lucas for the Ewoks.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2010, 04:39:48 AM
Yes but in reality, "reversing the sub-atomic resonance of the anti-matter injectors to reveal a temporal flux in the plasma conduits of the Enterprise" translates to "I was way too lazy to write the plot"
Now called "The Ron Moore school of writing" :contract: